Northern Ireland Peace Process: Statements (Resumed).

Mr. D. Ahern

The British Government's response to the Mitchell report is a proposal to hold elections in Northern Ireland. This side of the House has grave reservations about this process as we see it as divisive and unnecessary when the mandate of the parties is already known. I think it would tend to harden positions and lead to polarisation, not only between the two traditions but in the community. Elections will tend to marginalise and possibly exclude the UDP and PUP in the Unionist community and similarly will push away Sinn Féin and the SDLP who have come closer in recent years to dealing with the issue on this island. We would have to think long and hard about elections in this context.

One phrase in the Mitchell report that stands out and was re-echoed during a radio interview with Billy Hutchinson, the loyalist paramilitary representative for whom I have a great deal of respect, is the "decommissioning of mindsets". George Mitchell thought we should place the emphasis on the decommissioning of the mindsets on this island, rather than on arms decommissioning, albeit a very important subject. The Nationalist consensus which was disparagingly called the pan nationalist front has, in effect, been an effort to decommission the mindset of Irish republicanism and nationalism. That effort which started in the mid-1980s was the dynamic for the IRA ceasefire which in turn ultimately enabled the loyalist ceasefire. It is imperative to nurture that Nationalist consensus. The efforts to decommission the mindset of the Nationalist community have not been mirrored in the Unionist community. The British Government and the Unionist family have not moved and recent events show they have retrenched further into their positions and have been allowed to do so. We do not know where the three strand process, the foundation of the present negotiations, fits into the electoral process.

I questioned the Taoiseach on numerous occasions regarding his assertion that he did not see himself as leader of Nationalist Ireland. A week before the breakdown of the ceasefire, particularly in view of a letter Mr. Trimble wrote to the Tánaiste in which he referred to the fact that the two Governments were two distinct parties representing different interests and could not with integrity portray identical views, I again questioned the Taoiseach on whether he represented Nationalist Ireland. Unfortunately I was given a lecture by him on Articles 2 and 3 and our responsibilities in that regard.

I was particularly annoyed with the Taoiseach's attitude because it demonstrated his inability to understand what has been the dynamic of the peace process for the last six or seven years, that is, the coming together of people on the Nationalist side and joining the national consensus, implicitly acknowledging that ultimately they will have to compromise. The Taoiseach failed to understand and recognise that was the strength upon which the peace process was brought forward to such an extent that it lasted for 18 months.

The gulf between the two Governments in the past 12 months has been unfortunate and is one of the major elements that has brought us to this impasse. Through the years efforts were made to bring the two Governments together. I am a former co-chairman of the British Irish Inter-Parliamentary Body where tremendous efforts were made to bring together the parliamentarians of the Houses in Dublin and London. In recent times even politicians have moved away from that consensus. There is not the same coherence in that body. I say that with all due respects to my colleagues. There does not seem to be agreement and that is mirrored in the attitude of the two Governments. Reverend Roy Magee, one of the main proponents of the peace process, put his finger on it when he spoke the other day about what he saw as one of the main problems.

What we need is the type of leadership we had up to the ceasefire, the type of risk taking we had in the mid eighties up to 1994 for which some of us on this side of the House were berated and felt uneasy about because we were doing things which perhaps we should not have done. We were not given support on all occasions. It is incumbent on those on the far side of the House to take the type of risks we took, not from a political point of view, but to solidify the process which I hope will lead to peace on this island. I exhort the Government to get back on track with the British Government. I accept that the fault mainly lies with the far side but it is one of the necessary components in this process. If the two Governments do not speak to each other the process will disintegrate. I implore the two Governments to get together.

Minister for Justice (Mrs. Owen)

The events of Friday night last have cast a dark shadow over the peace process. The announcement of the ending of the IRA's complete cessation of military activities at 6 p.m. was followed quickly by a brutal and senseless bomb attack in London. The images that filled our TV screens on Friday night and Saturday were of a kind which we had all hoped had been consigned to the past. The bomb attack in Canary Wharf resulted in two further unjustifiable deaths in pursuit of a campaign of violence first initiated more than 25 years ago. That attack has also resulted in inflicting horrific injuries on many more innocent victims.

Our sympathy and first thoughts must go to the relatives of those who have died and to the other victims of that attack.

We also need to consider how we respond to that attack both politically and in security terms. The Government has always opposed the use of violence for political ends. Successive Governments have responded to such violence by doing all in their power to protect the people. As our statement on Saturday makes clear, the Government remains resolute in its determination to end terrorism from whatever source.

The Government, accordingly, announced a full review of security to that end. The decision to order that review was taken following a briefing which the Government received from the Garda Commissioner. It was immediately put in hand and those steps which the Garda authorities considered necessary have now been taken. Continuing vigilance will be required and I assure the House that the position will be reviewed on an ongoing basis and any further steps considered necessary will be implemented as circumstances require.

The Garda authorities are also in close contact with the London Metropolitan Police and the RUC and will provide any assistance required in connection with the investigation of Friday's atrocity.

Successive Governments have ensured that the Garda Síochána have been equipped to deal with the terrorist threat. Close co-operation exists between the Garda, the RUC and other police forces for this purpose. The measure of our response and our commitment to cross-Border security co-operation is to be seen in the commitment of resources, in the enactment and application of legal measures and in the successes of the security forces in countering terrorist activity. The high level of co-operation achieved within the framework of the Anglo-Irish Conference has long been recognised. The benefits of that co-operation have already been seen in successful operations that prevented earlier attempts to disrupt the peace process by groups opposed to it. The British Prime Minister acknowledged the closeness of that co-operation in his remarks in the House of Commons on Monday. That policy will continue to inform our approach.

It would be contrary to long-established practice and manifestly counter-productive to go into details on security precautions or ongoing security reviews. It is important, however, that I should issue a word of caution about reliance on media or other speculation as to what measures may or may not be involved.

In this connection I refer to two suggestions which have been made to the effect that the London atrocity has resulted in the diversion of Garda resources from anti-drugs activity and from an operation recently mounted to counter the problem of attacks on elderly people in rural areas known as Operation Shannon. There is no basis for either of these suggestions.

I have decided to comment on them specifically, and quite exceptionally, because they have been a source of public unease. I emphasise that certain other rumours and comments attributed to unnamed sources concerning the security response are also without foundation. I am not, by selecting two alleged responses which have given rise to concern, confirming others.

A security response to the recent event is very far from being the whole answer. The tragic years that preceded the ceasefires have taught us all that real solutions to the Northern conflict can only be found through political action.

We in this House and those outside must ensure that the events of Friday do not mark the start of another tragic phase in our history. We must reassert the determination and commitment that existed within both Governments and among the parties in the North to find a way through dialogue to resolve our differences. We were making progress, albeit slowly, but we can resume and strengthen our joint resolve.

The Government firmly believed the IRA statement of 31 August 1994 represented a new departure and a new beginning. Both the present and former Government acted on the basis that that was the case and that the cessation of violence was permanent. The Government responded to that new situation in all of the ways that were open to us. That response was evidenced by such developments as the establishment of the Forum for Peace and Reconciliation in which Sinn Féin was engaged in seeking to build on the peace, the ending of the national emergency early last year and in the positive approach which the Government took on the prisoners issue.

Peace brought with it enormous benefits. The economic benefits are there to be seen in the results of the initiatives undertaken by the United States administration and the European Union. Those benefits are also to be seen in the increased revenues from tourism throughout the island. Peace also made possible a security response. Measures which had been considered necessary by the campaigns of violence were relaxed both in Northern Ireland and in this jurisdiction. Those changes brought immediate benefits to people in Border areas. They are now put at risk again because of Friday's events.

More than that, the new situation created by the August 1994 statement, and by the subsequent decision of the combined loyalist military command in October 1994 to universally cease operations on its part, created an unparalleled opportunity to secure a political settlement of the Northern Ireland conflict. The ending of the use of violence for political ends made possible the prospect of fully inclusive negotiations for the first time in 25 years aimed at achieving such a settlement. It meant that all views could be represented in those negotiations and that all sides would have a stake in the process. It also ensured that the atmosphere in which such negotiations would take place would not be poisoned by the spectre of continuing violence. The prospect of achieving a political settlement of the long-standing problems of Northern Ireland were never more favourable. Friday's events serve only to put all of this in jeopardy.

Both this Government and the previous Government have worked unceasingly towards the objective of securing a political settlement based on consent. We have worked closely with the British Government in seeking to construct a basis for securing such a settlement through agreement on the Framework Document which was intended to inform all-party negotiations. The Government has also worked long and hard with the British Government to construct a basis on which all-party negotiations could be launched. We have also worked closely with the political parties both here and in Northern Ireland over a wide spectrum of political opinion and allegiance to seek to bring forward all-party negotiations. We remain committed to that agenda and we remain ready to continue our efforts to that end. That approach is and remains the best way forward for the people of these islands.

Violence, on the contrary, has had no successful outcome over 25 years. No community has escaped its effects and no one community has a monopoly of suffering. We have had too many deaths and too much suffering as a result of the campaigns of violence. There simply has to be a better way, and there is.

The use or the very threat of violence has the capacity to reverse the economic and social benefits which the peace process has brought. Those benefits have been widely felt and have been seen in the quality of life enjoyed by each and every individual on this island. The ending of violence created an unprecedented opportunity for economic and social development in this island. Is that now to be squandered? Violence can only serve to undermine the confidence and trust necessary for negotiations aimed at a political settlement. That trust and confidence has been slowly built up since the cessations announced in 1994.

The Government is clear as to what is now necessary. It is clear that the basis for democratic negotiations must now be restored using every opportunity and every good idea proffered as a means to achieve progress. All those who seek all-party negotiations and a political settlement of the Northern Ireland issue must therefore work to create the conditions in which democratic negotiations become possible.

The Government believes that the restoration of the IRA ceasefire is an urgent requirement. Such a step can again create the basis for fully inclusive all-party negotiations. I would therefore appeal to the men of violence to desist from the course on which they have embarked and to reconsider the consequences of their actions for the people of Ireland as a whole. Violence means turning their backs on their families and neighbours and on negotiations and the search for a fully inclusive political settlement.

I would equally appeal to those who have influence on the IRA to use that influence to secure the restoration of the ceasefire. The IRA needs to be convinced that the path of non-violence offers the only means by which it can hope to influence the terms of any political settlement which will be the product of a negotiation process.

That appeal is directed to Sinn Féin, in particular, who must understand that the announcement and events of last Friday fly in the face of the prospect of negotiations which it seeks — and we all seek — and only serve to frustrate such a prospect upon which so much time and effort has been expended.

Establishing a broadly acceptable basis for all-party negotiations will require openness by all sides to new ideas. The Government has been and remains open to such ideas. The Government's recent proposal for proximity talks was made in that spirit. We saw a need for the various issues which require to be settled as part of the preparatory talks process directed to all-party negotiations to be brought to a conclusion and proximity talks as a means to do this. We saw such talks as an utterly consistent and logical step. We saw it, first, as a way of widening out the bilateral and trilateral talks that had already been taking place, for those who wished to participate in other formats. We also saw it as the most efficient way of advancing discussions on all the issues that need to be discussed between parties prior to inclusive negotiations. There would be no need for parties to meet others whom they did not wish to meet.

All of them by coming together at a convenient venue would have the opportunity of dealing in the most effective and efficient way with the business that needs to be done.

The Government has equally consistently stated that it does not exclude the idea of an election playing a part in such a process. We have, however, made clear our view that it is for those who favour this approach to show how it can lead to all-party negotiations and how it can be integrated into the three-stranded negotiations to which the two Governments are committed. Other ideas may equally have a role to play in creating a basis for all-party talks. Some ideas have been expressed in this debate and no doubt we will hear others during the course of today and tomorrow.

The Government has decided in the light of the IRA announcement and the bomb attack in London that it would be inappropriate for it to continue with meetings with Sinn Féin at ministerial level. To do so would be inconsistent with longstanding policy, as Sinn Féin must recognise. As the Taoiseach made clear yesterday, that is not to say that the door has been closed to communication with Sinn Féin. Contact will be maintained at official level and existing channels for that specific purpose remain available. The sincere hope of the Government is that those channels will be used to create the basis for progress and bring about the situation we all want to see — the restoration of the IRA ceasefire.

What the Government is saying to Sinn Féin therefore is not that it wishes to see them excluded from the political process. Far from it. What we are saying is that they must make it possible and credible for us to resume contact without delay at political level by restoring the confidence we all enjoyed for 17 months that violence had truly ended as a means of advancing political objectives.

Official channels remain open to enable Sinn Féin to convey information and ideas which would help to restore that confidence. If, of course, confirmation were forthcoming from the IRA that the ceasefire had been restored, then that in itself would immediately open the door to the resumption of full political dialogue with Sinn Féin.

Each of us has a duty not only to reject violence as a political option but also to create the conditions in which recourse to it is rendered impossible. My appeal is therefore also directed to the people of this island who can make their own rejection of violence and their commitment to a negotiated political settlement both as individuals and as members of parties and groups in which they participate.

The Government for its part will continue its efforts to chart a way forward and to create a basis for inclusive all-party negotiations aimed at a political settlement based on consent. We will continue to pursue proposals and ideas which we believe can contribute to making such negotiations possible in the short-term and will continue to work closely with the British Government with that objective in mind. We will recommit ourselves to that work in the hope that the events of last Friday can be put behind us and that a basis for moving forward in which all can engage can be found.

Rebuilding the peace process will require the commitment of all parties. It will require those parties who have to date failed to engage fully in preparatory talks to embrace that process and to give their fully commitment to it. Parties who purport to believe in democratic negotiations can no longer have the luxury of standing aside. They must demonstrate their commitment by showing themselves ready to engage with both Governments and other parties in establishing a broadly acceptable basis for negotiations.

Friday's bombing brought tragedy and suffering into the lives of countless Londoners. We grieve and suffer with them. Friday's events also represent a serious setback to the peace process and, if we are to avoid a recurrence and a slide into the mindless and pointless violence of the past, we need to act.

Action is demanded of us all. It is required first and foremost from the IRA and those who exert influence over that organisation. Real leadership has already been shown by the leaders of the loyalist parties in their response to Friday's events. I hope that those who exert influence on loyalist paramilitary groups will continue to use that influence to prevent any return to violence on their part. Both Governments, and all the political parties in Northern Irealnd, need to act to create the conditions in which all party negotiations become possible on the broadly acceptable basis, about which I have spoken.

The task which faces us is not an easy one. It has been made both more difficult and urgent by Friday's terrible events in London. It will require the determined efforts of everyone to move the present difficult situation forward. The Government will not shirk that task. It remains the single greatest priority that we have, and I earnestly appeal to the political representatives of both communities to engage with us in this task at this critical time on behalf of all the people on this island.

Mr. R. Burke

I join with Members who have spoken, and those who will speak on this debate, in abhorring the breakdown of the IRA ceasefire. Most Members who have spoken have described it as an absolute tragedy, and that is what it is. I also join with Members who have expressed abhorrence at the violence on Friday night, at the deaths of two innocent men, the injuring of dozens and the £100 million worth of damage to the Canary Wharf area by a bomb set off by the IRA in the name of the Irish people. I reject the IRA's claim that it speaks on our behalf. As democrats and parliamentarians we must do everything possible to rescue the peace process. We consistently called for this debate since last October and, unfortunately, it is taking place in the aftermath of the violence. At our request it has been extended by the Government to three days. This is a worth-while exercise on behalf of the Irish people. They, and others, are being given an opportunity to hear the views of Members of the Irish Parliament on the tragedy of the breakdown of the ceasefire, our condemnation of the behaviour of the IRA and our emphasis that that organisation does not speak on behalf of the Irish people.

Last Friday we all felt we were falling down a precipice and this morning we appear to find ourselves precariously on a ledge. The need to take the right steps now with a proper sense of urgency is vital. I am pleased about the more reasonable tones of some parties, especially the British Government, in recent days. I welcome the conciliatory tone of the British Prime Minister in the House of Commons on Monday. It is regrettable that we did not hear the same voices speak in those tones before last Friday. What we witnessed was progress in the peace process at a snail's pace. We had seen the consistent breaking of promises in relation to movement. I regret that failure was not only on the side of the British Government. While I do not want to score political points this morning it is essential we should be frank and also mention the failures on the part of our Government. In particular, the wrong signals emanated from both Governments.

The Framework Documents contained the result of 12 months work by both Governments on the future relationships in the North, those between the North and South and those between the two islands, commonly known as the Strand III type process. It laid out the best views of the two Governments. The ink was not dry on the paper when that document was pushed to one side. The Taoiseach, in introducing a debate on that document in the House went to great lengths to emphasise it was not the only way forward. We all knew that. It was a discussion document, but he left a clear message in the minds of Unionists that they had a veto in relation to it. That document was then pushed off the agenda never to be heard of again. It became a source of embarrassment when any Government spokesperson was asked about it.

A further wrong signal was sent by the refusal of the Taoiseach to meet jointly, at their request, John Hume and Gerry Adams. The reason for the decision was that it might send the wrong signal to the Unionist community, but the leaders of that community had made very little effort to show any flexibility in relation to all-party talks. In refusing to meet John Hume and Gerry Adams together, the Taoiseach did not send the right type of signal to the Unionist community and its leaders, which was one of inclusiveness in that they also had a role to play. He sent a signal of weakness because the Unionists interpreted concessions as a weakness. Those wrong signals continued to be sent.

We welcomed the communiqué of 28 November, but my party leader, Deputy Ahern, made an eloquent point at that time, as he did yesterday in his historic speech which in my 23 years as a Member will be recorded as one of the great speeches made in this House. He made the point that the effect of the communiqué would be to move the road-block ten metres down the road and, unfortunately, that is what happened. The twin track approach was established. Senator Mitchell, to whom I will refer later, presented his report at 11 a.m. one morning only to have it rubbished by the British Prime Minister in the House of Commons at 3.30 p.m. that afternoon by announcing that he had decided to support the election process. Six lines out of 62 paragraphs in the 20 pages of the Mitchell report were devoted to the election process. Again, all the wrong signals were coming from the British Government but those signals had been given not just at 3.30 p.m. on the day of the publication of the report, they had been given in a telephone message to the Taoiseach the night before that speech.

In Question Time in the House a week later, I asked the Taoiseach why, having had a telephone call the night before the publication of the Mitchell report and having received an indication of the mind-set of the British Prime Minister, he did not pick up the telephone the following morning and try to persuade the British Prime Minister to alter his view on the downhill course he was embarked upon, of rubbishing the Mitchell report and opting for this election. The Taoiseach had no reply. It was another failure; another wrong signal and so the history of the 17 months of the peace process continued.

In raising those failures of the two Governments and others — maybe we, the Unionists with their intransigence and others could have been more active, maybe more could and should have been done — over the 17 months, nothing justifies last Friday's decision of the IRA to place that bomb in London and to announce the ending of the ceasefire.

After the meeting between the Taoiseach of the time, Deputy Albert Reynolds, John Hume and Gerry Adams on the steps of Government buildings following the IRA's announcement of the ceasefire on 31 August 1994, the joint statement said that we cannot solve this problem without the participation and agreement of the Unionist people and they made it quite clear that the way forward was by the democratic road. In participating in the Forum for Peace and Reconciliation, Sinn Féin made it clear that the way forward was only through the democratic process. One cannot have à la carte democracy. There cannot be a situation where if you get your way, you agree with the democratic principles but if there are frustrations and delays, you then revert to the bomb and the bullet in the name of the Irish people. This is not, and cannot be, the way forward.

Last Friday's bombing was an appalling act; it threatened to plunge us all back into continuing violence. I want to say to the IRA and the Irish people that it must never happen again but we cannot have a situation where the threat of violence hangs over our heads like the sword of Damocles. All sides must go back and fulfil their commitments as made at the outset of the ceasefire. We cannot have a position where the IRA's Army Council is wondering whether to start bombing again because progress is not being made at the speed which they wanted.

I was disturbed to read an article by Vincent Browne in The Irish Times today which referred to an interview he had with Martin McGuinness of Sinn Féin. It states:

I asked if such "absolute confidence" were created and such "guarantee" were given would the new ceasefire, in his opinion, be permanent. He said there was nothing permanent in life. I pointed out the Progressive Democrats or the Alliance Party would have no difficulty in giving a "permanent" guarantee that they would not support the use of violence in the pursuit of a political goal (I should have said "illegal violence"), why could he not give the same kind of commitment on behalf of Sinn Féin.

He said that if we could be assured that there would be an end to injustice, an end to discrimination and an end to the "undemocratic state" then we could talk of a permanent ceasefire.

We are in a situation where there are too many "ifs", "buts" and "threats". Also disturbing in that article was Mr. McGuinness's reaction to the Mitchell principles. Vincent Browne's article states:

I went on to ask Martin McGuinness whether Sinn Féin could accept the Mitchell principles — I had written recently that neither Sinn Féin nor the IRA would accept all of them and a prominent Sinn Féin person had gone out of their way to inform me I was mistaken about that. I asked him whether specifically Sinn Féin accepted the principle "to agree to abide by the terms of any agreement reached in all-party negotiations and to resort to democratic and exclusively peaceful methods in trying to alter any aspect of that outcome with which they may disagree".

He started his answer by saying that his response would probably not be satisfactory to me. It wasn't. He said this was a matter for negotiation, that people should not try to back Sinn Féin into corners at this time,....

In Fianna Fáil's view, the six principles as laid out in Senator George Mitchell's excellent report are not items for negotiation. They are not to be added to with a seventh principle as the British Government wants to do but, equally, they are not for negotiation, as is the view of Martin McGuinness. Article 20 of the Mitchell report states:

Accordingly, we recommend that the parties to such negotiations affirm their total and absolute commitment:

a. To democratic and exclusively peaceful means of resolving political issues;

b. To the total disarmament of all paramilitary organisations;

c. To agree that such disarmament must be verifiable to the satisfaction of an independent commission;

d. To renounce for themselves, and to oppose any effort by others, to use force, or threaten to use force, to influence the course or the outcome of all-party negotiations;

e. To agree to abide by the terms of any agreement reached in all-party negotiations and to resort to democratic and exclusively peaceful methods in trying to alter any aspect of that outcome with which they may disagree; and

f. To urge that "punishment" killings and beatings stop and to take effective steps to prevent such actions.

How can principles such as those be the subject of negotiation? They cannot.

I mentioned Senator Mitchell on a number of occasions and he has a crucial role to play in the peace process as we try to rescue it. He has shown himself to be a man of extraordinary ability and skill and there will be the need for a mediator as the weeks advance. I ask the two Governments not to be afraid to take on board the suggestion of requesting Senator Mitchell to act as peace envoy just because it comes from the Opposition or because it would involve the American administration. The American administration has been a good friend to Ireland in the peace process and we must build on it, not reject it. Senator Mitchell's support must provide the basis for moving to all-party talks.

On the suggested elections, neither Fianna Fáil nor the SDLP is convinced of the necessity for elections. However, we will support whatever the SDLP ultimately decide to do about this proposal. In his contribution yesterday I noted the Taoiseach was much more positive about elections while the Tánaiste and Minister for Foreign Affairs emphasised the difficulties still to be overcome; nevertheless perhaps the bottom line for each is the same.

The basic requirements of the Fianna Fáil Party are that elections would lead immediately and directly to full scale negotiations, that there would be no assembly or elected body, as such and that any negotiations or meetings would be convened and organised by the two Governments on the three-strand basis. I emphasise that there cannot be internal solutions, which appears to be what is advocated by the Unionist parties. Our party recommends that any negotiations should take place on the basis of the six principles of the Mitchell report and phased decommissioning, and there must be a place for the loyalist parties in those talks.

I spoke earlier about Sinn Féin and the IRA. I now emphasise the very positive role the loyalist parties have played in this process. I appeal to all concerned, including those within IRA circles who may listen. We must get the peace process back on the rails. Peace has been treasured by all on this island, including those the IRA claims to represent. The IRA actions are not carried out on behalf of the Irish people. It is damaging the long-term interests of the people it claims to represent and I call on it to step back from the brink. I ask Sinn Féin to use its influence to endeavour to get the peace process going again. There will be a place for Sinn Féin at the negotiating table on the basis of the peace process being restored and we on this side of the House will do everything within our power to ensure that progress is made with the greatest possible speed.

We on this side of the House abhor the violence that took place on Friday last and ask all concerned to let the peace process continue.

Mr. Kavanagh

We meet today to discuss the breakdown of the peace process resulting from the bomb exploded by the IRA at Canary Wharf in London on Friday last against the wishes of the majority of the people of this island who abhor such atrocities. I join in the condemnation of that atrocious act of violence.

While Members on all sides of the House have criticised the 18 month delay in taking action on the peace process, delay did not kill anybody but bombs do. It is said that action was taken by the IRA without consultation with Sinn Féin, the democratic party that claims to know the minds of those in the IRA and to represent its views. I accept that Mr. Adams and Mr. McGuinness are telling the truth when they say they knew nothing about the action taken. There appears to be an enormous lack of communication between Sinn Féin and the IRA. Therefore, a question mark must hang over whether Sinn Féin represents the views it leads us to believe it does, or whether that party has lost the confidence of some people within the IRA who have reverted to their violent methods of the past 25 years.

As chairman of the Economic and Social Committee of the British Irish Inter-Parliamentary body I was in Belfast on Tuesday and Wednesday last where we met various groups and discussed the effect of the moneys from the International Fund for Ireland on the general position in the North. As the House will be aware, that fund was established to improve economic conditions in the most disadvantaged areas in the North and bring about reconciliation there through the allocation of international moneys from the USA, Canada, Australia and Europe. The administration of that fund has been very successful over the past three or four years, leading to a great deal of good generally.

In the course of the British Irish Inter-Parliamentary Body's investigation in the past nine months its members visited groups and projects on both sides of the Border and saw the enormous progress arising from the operations of the International Fund for Ireland. The body was to report progress on its investigations to our plenary session to be held in Adare at the end of April. A bomb exploding in London on Friday evening, appears to fly in the face of all the progress made in the meantime including the economic regeneration.

I propose to share my time with my colleague, Deputy Joe Costello.

Acting Chairman (Mr. T. Foxe)

Is that agreed? Agreed.

Mr. Kavanagh

We witnessed how economic regeneration could take place within a short period and how rapidly it could be brought to a halt by one single bomb. Having condemned that atrocious act, we must remember what did not take place in the 18 month period. Throughout that period, there was a lack of generosity and, no movement from the entrenched positions of Unionist politicians in the North. For example, when the peace process was initiated too many members of the Unionist parties in the North were to ready to say it would not last, it was not genuine, that guns and bombs had to be handed over immediately. There was not any sign of the generosity of spirit one might have expected of those in a dominant position in the North. In the immediate aftermath of last Friday's bomb explosion, the "I told you so" brigade came to the fore saying they knew the IRA would revert to type and resume their bombing activities.

Those same Unionists politicians witnessed the enormous economic benefits derived from the peace process. Since they represent the vast majority of business people and various economic interests in the North, they could not but have witnessed those huge economic benefits. Nonetheless, throughout the peace process, we did not see the type of generosity on their part that would have contributed so much to ensuring its continuation.

The British Irish Inter-Parliamentary Body was established five years ago. It comprised 25 Members of the British Parliament and House of Lords along with 25 Members of the Houses of the Oireacthas and two places were set aside for Unionists, and they rejected them. They were not even willing to participate in that small exercise to bring parliamentarians together. Right up to last week they continued to reject that opportunity, refusing to join other members of that body in dealing not only with security and policing in the North but with other proposals of positive benefit to their constituents, through our mutual participation in the European Union with its many economic and social advantages for people on both sides of the Border. For example, the Economic and Social Committee of the British-Irish Inter-Parliamentary Body, of which I am chairman, did a report on social welfare benefits last year and it would have been of interest to have had heard their views. We had a debate on education on both sides of the Border and it was the duty of participants to be involved producing a report but nothing happened.

There has been a deafening silence from the social partners — trade unions, employers, farmers and others, professionals, the motor industry and the tourist trade — in the North during the past 18 months, all of whom have reaped the benefit of peace. It has also been of benefit to us on this side of the Border. Since the bombing on Friday last, none of these organisations has expressed their concern publicly, as they should have done, about the breakdown of peace. Those of us who have travelled in the North over the past 18 months, are aware that businesses have flourished in spite of the bombs that decimated cities, towns and villages and drove tourists from the North and the horrific murders in farming communities. One would have thought that organisations who are independent of politics would have instructed their politicians to sit down and talk rather than point scoring about who was right and who was wrong. I hope these people will bring pressure to bear.

Pre-budget submissions were made by the social partners and interest groups who demanded to see their politicians to tell them about the needs of the organisation or group they represent. I hope similar organisations in the North will tell their politicians that they want the peace process back on track, to sit down and talk and not to score points against one another. They should say that the Anglo-Irish Agreement and the Downing Street Declaration have given their position permanency so long as they want it permanent. They want peace now and want it to continue. They want politicians to take the Mitchell report, which was set up to continue the peace process, as a basis for agreement and want the Irish Government, the Opposition and anybody who can make a contribution to start talks and to keep talking.

The bomb has set us all back but it means the British Government realises that making preconditions is a deadly business. I am glad that John Major, the British Prime Minister, is now prepared to give way in certain areas and to set out a programme so that talks can begin between the two Governments with a view to putting the peace process back on track. I wish the Government spokesmen well in what has to be done urgently. We all want to see the peace process continue. I hope we have seen the last bomb set off by the IRA in any part of this country or in the UK. Children are the biggest losers as a result of bomb explosions. Their futures are in danger whether economically or through their presence on the streets of Northern Ireland, England or elsewhere.

We could all repeat what we read in the newspapers over the weekend and blame others. However, we must look to the future, stop blaming others and say what must be done to achieve peace and get people back around the table. It is my wish for both Governments that they see the urgency of the task in hand. They have to represent reasonable views, such as those of John Hume and others who have led the peace process since 1973 and the various initiatives since to try to achieve peace. From my experience in the British-Irish Inter-parliamentary Body we have seen great progress and we want it to continue.

Mr. Costello

I am pleased to have an opportunity to contribute. What happened last Friday was catastrophic. The greatest moment in the history of this small island, over the past 25 years, was the declaration of the ceasefire on 31 August, 1994. Since then we have had almost 18 months of peace which, unfortunately, was shattered on Friday last and we all know its reverberations. It was like an earthquake all over the world and the sense of despair was universal.

The condemnation was also universal. Everywhere there was condemnation that human life was again being taken. There were large scale marches in Belfast and Derry. Clearly, ordinary people were shattered by the return to violence and wanted to show they did not want it back on a regular basis. There was a flurry of political responses in an attempt to save the ceasefire. Nobody wanted — or wants — the peace to die. Almost 18 months of peace has meant that a whole new generation which has grown to adulthood without peace has tasted it for the first time. They have been able to live without fear in that period and have been able to bask in a sense of safety and normal life. They have been able to walk the streets which they had feared to tread, particularly at night. The visit of President Clinton showed the emotional response to the feeling of sustained peace among people North and South.

Cross-Border tourism has become a major part of the economy and of people's lives. People from the North are travellng as far south as Cork and Kerry and booking hotels and guesthouses there. On this side of the Border we are holding conferences in Newcastle and various parts of the North. There has been a tremendous amount of cross-Border activity as well as international tourism. There has been a hands-across-the-Border approach and a co-operative spirit. The whole economy of Northern Ireland had just commenced a restructuring process. Investment was coming from the United States and Europe.

Industries and houses were being built and derelict bomb sites were being renovated. The ghosts of sectarianism and bigotry were seemingly about to be put to rest. The conflicts of Catholic versus Protestant and Nationalist versus Unionist were no longer being played out in violence and hostility. People were beginning to live together and to work out their differences. All of that has been shattered. The process which began with a ceasefire to enable dialogue to begin did not reach its conclusion.

During the 17 months of the ceasefire hurdles were raised and the objective of talks seemed forever on the horizon yet unattainable. The definition of "permanent", the need for decommissioning and the issue of elections were all raised as hurdles to negotiations. While nothing justifies a return to violence the reasons for that violence are obvious.

The step back from the precipice which now looms can only be taken by the IRA. It must step back to the ceasefire. The first element of a renewed approach must be an urgent response from the IRA. The second element is for the two sovereign Governments to clearly map out a path to all-party talks. They must make it clear that all-party talks is their joint primary objective. In that context, the Government's proposal on proximity talks is excellent because it cannot compromise anybody yet can tease out difficulties that may arise. Although Prime Minister Major's proposal on the elections was premature in its presentation, it may prove, on explanation and clarification, to have complementary elements. Everything must be taken in the context of the Mitchell report which set a primary objective of avoiding obstacles and starting all-party talks.

We are at a critical point. Matters may get worse and if they do they will be atrocious. However, we can improve matters by holding ground and pointing the way forward without violence. There is a deep desire for peace on this island and in the international community.

Mr. S. Brennan

The most urgent task is to restore the peace and I hope this debate can go some way to making that happen. This is an important debate and our contributions should be measured and thoughtful. It is important to move on but before we do so it is important to understand how we came to this point. Ego played a large part on all sides and if we get a chance to restart the process that ego should not be there again. The bomb in London cannot be excused, but as politicians we have to try to find an explanation for it. I join in condemning the IRA unreservedly and unambiguously for this despicable act of murder. I offer my sympathies to those affected.

I wish the Government well in moving the process forward but we have to learn from some of the mistakes. In putting the process back together the Government will have the Opposition's support. I do not doubt the Taoiseach's genuineness with regard to Northern Ireland but I will not join the cosy consensus that suggests he can carry on as if everything had been done properly. I do not question the Taoiseach's genuineness, ability or integrity but he made major political mistakes. We would be failing in our duty in this House to conduct a debate on the issue and not make that point because it may be helpful to the Taoiseach in trying to put the process back together. He made serious mistakes and I hope he will not make them again. The Taoiseach is responsible to the Dáil and it is appropriate that he accounts to the House for his stewardship as the leader of the Government. He failed to stay close to the British Prime Minister. He did not conduct the Northern Ireland policy as if it was his overriding priority. He brought no sense of direction, urgency or passion to his policy on Northern Ireland. I charge him with abandoning the peace process by delegating it to others — to colleagues, officials and committees. This led to the 17 months of the peace process being squandered.

The Taoiseach also failed to persuade the British Prime Minister, John Major, that he had to act jointly with him and not embark on a solo run. The Taoiseach's job was to ensure the governments acted in unison. It was his job to ensure there were no surprises on either side, to ensure there were no solo runs. He failed in his duty in that regard.

The Taoiseach should have been tackling the two major obstacles — decommissioning and elections. He handled those issues badly and failed the House and the country. Had he handled them properly they would not have become obstacles. I will be accused of breaking the cosy consensus that every Member of the House did his best. I have no doubt that the Taoiseach did his best, but it was not good enough. Had he handled these two issues differently the reaction would have been different.

On prior decommissioning, did he make it clear to the British Prime Minister that if the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, Sir Patrick Mayhew, made this a precondition, the Government would publicly disown the Downing Street Declaration or did he turn on his television set and see Sir Patrick Mayhew do exactly that in Washington? This should not have come as a complete surprise to him.

He should have made it clear in one to one contact with the British Prime Minister that if such road blocks were to be set up, he should be informed in advance and if the Government did not agree with such an approach, it would say so publicly. It was stated explicitly in the Downing Street Declaration that the two Governments would act together. He should have made it clear to the British Prime Minister that in adopting such an approach Sir Patrick Mayhew would incur the wrath of the Government and break the terms of the Downing Street Declaration.

Following the publication of the Mitchell report the British Government stated that it would like to see elections held in keeping with the wishes of Mr. Trimble. It appears that the Taoiseach was again taken by surprise. Having been let down on the issue of decommissioning he should have learned his lesson and expected this to happen. He should have told the British Prime Minister bluntly that if he could not accept the findings of the report, he should tell him early enough to delay publication and allow them time to discuss the matter either in Downing Street or Dublin and that they should not allow the report to be published knowing that one of them would have to turn it down. A child would have seen that such a split would lead to a breakdown in the peace process and a return to violence. He should have made it clear that any solo runs by the British Government would be in breach of the terms of the Downing Street Declartion, that this would not be acceptable and not the way to move the process forward.

It was made clear in the Downing Street Declaration that nothing would happen without the agreement of both Governments. However, decommissioning and the holding of elections were laid down as preconditions without the agreement of the Government. I, therefore, charge the Taoiseach with failing in his duty by letting the light in between the two Governments when he knew full well that the only way the process could be kept on the rails was by acting in unison with no surprises, solo runs or announcements from across the Atlantic leading to kneejerk reactions.

I find the cosy consensus unrealistic as the two Governments must accept a large share of the blame. I beg the Government not to allow this to happen again. It should stay close to the British Government and ensure that it is informed in advance of any announcements from the other side of the water.

The Taoiseach — I do not mean Deputy Bruton plus two or three assistants — and the British Prime Minister should understand each other on these issues. The British Prime Minister who is clearly in charge of his Government has to deal with a committee of Ministers, officials and advisers. This leads to a lack of clarity. Can one blame him for misunderstanding the signals? We will never know what he was told from this side of the water. I do not know what messages he received from the Minister for Social Welfare, Deputy De Rossa, and the Tánaiste and Minister for Foreign Affairs, Deputy Spring, but the view must be conveyed that while some wanted elections, others did not and that while some were tough on the Provisional IRA, others felt that someone had to talk to them. He must have sat back in his chair and said to himself "I wish they would make up their minds". Because of the confusion in the minds of the members of the Government he failed to receive a strong single message from the Republic that if he failed to seek the agreement of the Government before going on a solo run, it would lead to destruction.

When the Taoiseach took office the psychology in the relationship between Britain and Ireland and the modus operandi changed. From my own observations during the past year I am deeply convinced that he did not make this his dominant theme. Is the Minister of State amused?

Minister of State at the Department of Enterprise and Employment (Mr. Rabbitte)

The Deputy's speech so far is pathetic and does not do him justice.

Mr. Andrews

That is what is wrong with members of Democratic Left — they have something on their conscience. It is terrible to have to listen to the Minister of State.

Mr. J. O'Keeffe

I endorse everything the Minister of State said.